[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]I used to lean towards the 6 days being much longer idea as well, but more recently opted towards then 10,000 year timeline. Either way, I still firmly believe that things were created as we see them now, and that man did live with dinosaurs for a time. [/B][/QUOTE]
Eh... for me of course the longer time period makes more sense. I justify that because of OUR falability (is that a word?)
:p
You know it could be that The great serpents and dragons were left over dwindling survivors of the Jurrasic that were dying out and becoming extinct as animals became the dominant creatures.
We'd need to find very recent fossils for that though...
It's just amazing to me from a geological, chemical, and biological aspect that the soft tissue has survived 70 million years! :)
I do have to laugh at the discovery of that very OLD deep sea dwelling fish they once though was extinct for millions of years...
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
A% - could it be not that Evolution is true but rather that the Creationism is so unsupported in comparison that people automatically dismiss it?
it's supported by the same evidance that evolution uses, simply a very differant way of looking at things. Where evolutionist see chaos, creationist see order.
where evolutionist see billions of years of rock layers, creationist see one massive, quick flood.
we can argue the schemantics of this all day, but in the end we use the same evidance, with both sides say the other has no tangible evidance supporting their claims, and both sides are very set that they are correct.
Neither option is more possible then the other, but in the end only one IS correct. Which one seems more likely depends on the person, to me, it is simply infathomable that we happened by chance, for others, the oppocite.
Space itself is also expanding, meaning we're all getting fatter....
The problem with anything dealing with god is that it is unfalsifiable. God can't be disproven by direct means. We can arrive to the conclusion based on what we know of the universe. The lack of evidence for something is often reguarded as evidence aganced when there are competing theories that do have evidence for. (I do have some issues with this statement when the competing theories are really nothing more than a hypothesis)
Also a hypothesis doesn't become a theory. A hypothesis is a statement that is made for the purpose of an expiriment. A theory is, generally, a kind of model that explains something. These tend to arrive from the results of the expirament (hopefully more than one done by various people), not the hypothesis itself.
right you are croxis. I try to avoid arguments "This can't be explained so it proves God" for that very point. It will eventually be explained, however, some of those things can point to god.
And example being the universe expanding at an increasing rate, meaning one big bang.
(I'm begining to like that one. I think it's just too cool. :D )
yea, kinda hard to avoid in college bio 1 and 2. still have 3 and 4...
through highschool, not really. only in Natural sciance and the likes, basically goving the theory rather then the "facts" supporting it.
-edit, heading to bed, be back in 11 to 12 hours. thats if I wake up before noon. if I don't then it will be tomorrow evening. :D 6 hours of class, all after noon. :D
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
OK, A#, you're going to have to explain to me how all those rock layers can be created in one quick flood.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]OK, A#, you're going to have to explain to me how all those rock layers can be created in one quick flood. [/B][/QUOTE]
God was in a foul mood and poured in Quickrete by mistake... :p
Ithink the flood event is a passed down memory from 10k-13k years ago when the large ice caps and shelves melted in a 20 year period...
That's huge when you think about it
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...personally I think the "flood" is much more likely related to a Tsunami since a lot of the origin of the bible is from the middle east area, an area able to be hit by major Tsunamis from the eastern indian ocean such as the Dec 26th quake.
I personally believe that much in there is based on reality of ancient cultures taht were transcribed and passed down...and for some inexplicable reason became a religion when in reality they originated as a culture, national law, and experiences of specific people in those regions.
The Bible flood story is almost an exact ripoff of Babylonian epics (amongst other things which I have to dig into to remember). Current ideas about what the flood was includes the formation of the Black Sea, which was a small freshwater lake that flooded while us humans were around.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I think the Black Sea flooding is the most likely candidate as the base legend. There's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory]good page on it[/url] over at wikipedia, as well as an interesting [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)]page on great floods[/url] in general.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]No offense, but just because life may have been created, it is silly to assume it is an indication of a shorter time span for the Earth itself. It seems just as feasible that if you're going to assume God created life then either he did it a long time ago, or he was strolling around his universe garden one day, saw a planet that was developing nicely and quite settled and thought to himself, "Hmmm, that planet's coming along well. I think I'll drop a few lifeforms on it." [/B][/QUOTE]
was just looking back at this and one of JackN's more recent posts when it occured to me, why does there have to be a god that did this? why not a race like the Vorlons? afterall, any sufficiently advanced race will look like gods to a lesser one? i think it more likely that some more advanced form of life could do this, withought having to drag in a much more complex system of having gods and such ala occam's razor
faith in a more advanced form of life i can deal with and believe, but not in a all-powerful divine prescence, but thats just my opinion
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]thanks Biggles, nice to have some ground on that one.
Final answer: We're both right. :D
(Well, close enough for me. Guided evolution...heh what a crock (imho) ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Can't believe I missed this post...
Anyway, this is what we call "bending the facts to fit." The figures quite clearly state that only 5% are creationists, you were claiming 50%.
It should also be pointed out that these are american scientists only; the scientific community is not restricted to just the USA. As the more detailed one said, in Europe and Australia evolution is nearly universally accepted.
Allright, dug up a couple young-earth articles, curious as to the responce. I've read your stuff, please read mine before replying to it. ;)
Rate of decay inconsistant:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp[/url]
potassium-argon dating inconsistant:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp[/url]
billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp[/url]
Lots of others, main thing they all agree on is that decay rates are not consistant.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
well i've read the articles, and i have to say that im not convinced. for starters if the 'information' came from an independent source i might be more inclined to believe it. the fact that these results come from an organisation dedicated to proving the world was created in a week doesnt lend it any credibility IMO.
as for the decay rates being inconsistent, we're taught here at Edinburgh Uni to take all radiometric dating results with a small pinch of salt, but not [I]that[/I] big a pinch. now im not saying that Im catagorically saying your wrong with your Creation myth, but as a geologist (in training i admit ;)) I cant see any other naturally occuring way that what I can see about me could have happened in a week or as a result of a flood. there are certain catastrophic means that could cause some of the features, but others couldnt be formed by anything other than something as drastic as an impact event in the alloted timespan.
to paraphrase the fermi paradox here: if god exists, then why dont we see him now?
um not to rain on your parade, but Rangitoto was created by a eruption roughly 600 years ago, with more eruptions (according to one theory) to follow for up to 200 years ago (see: [URL=http://www.arc.govt.nz/volcanic/rangitotoform.htm]Volcanoes of Auckland[/URL], so the 225 years dating falls neatly in there - and since the islands the plants could have hardly been below Rangitotos lava before it appeared 600 years ago, this [I]could[/I] be a hint for the young age of the wood datings.
Also, Biggle does have a good point there, over here in europe evolution is practically a fact (with capital "F").
Oh, and I wouldn't consider a magazine that claims to "uphold the authority of the bible" an independent and unbiased source of scientific information.
But then if we call this the world it would mean that the dream is the world and that the world was created when the dream started. ;)
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
was it the aboriginies that thought that was actually how the world started? as part of a dream? i cant remember, but i think it was them
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmaniac [/i]
[B]Oh, and I wouldn't consider a magazine that claims to "uphold the authority of the bible" an independent and unbiased source of scientific information. [/B][/QUOTE]
just to make a side point here: what makes the bible correct over budism and islam for example? as far as i can see, only the fact that theres a few folk who believe it; and that if america believes it, it must be right:rolleyes:
whos dream? if its mine, a world has been created yet, otherwise I wouldn't be the one who is dreaming, because dreaming implies that I exist in a place where I can be awake and interact with my surroundings (that being the universe we know,a jar in which my head floats...), and also be asleep to dream. Also, if the world I/we exist at this very moment is my dream, then it was already created by the dreamer, me (Look ma, I'm God!) (Hah! double proof!! :D )
If its, on the other hand, the dream of another, then the world I live in is a dream and would cease to exist, BUT, as the other is dreaming, his dream exists (as he created it - now look who is God now...), and also his reality (awake-world) would exist. Sooo... a (the?) world exists, even if this is a dream. Now, as for the question which world/reality (or dream) exists, the floor is hereby opened... :shadow1: *
[SIZE=1]*Warning! contains high dosage of weariness-induced logic - may not hold up to close scrutiny[/SIZE]
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Actually, more to the point: Anything can be claimed as "true" under the premise it cannot be proved false.
A2597's argument centers around two things:
Creationism (as with all philosophy) cannot be "proven" false
The Theory of Evolution (and all science) is evolving, and therefore occasionally there are falsehoods that have to be ironed out.
This is the same way my statement "We are a dream" cannot be proven false. In order to prove it false you have to prove that we are not a dream. All we can do is find evidence again and again that simply supports a non-dream state such as the famous "I think therefore I am." But it is impossible to prove we are not a dream.
In the same way creationism cannot be disproved. One can argue until they are blue that creationism is not true, but so long as the person that believes it says that every peice of evidence against it is "planted by god" that person will never accept that creationism isn't true.
The moment you start to say "Can all these many, many peices of evidence really be planted" is the first step to realizing that religious dogma might indeed be false.
Science is the study of assembling evidence from nature into theories.
Religious dogma is believing that no matter what you are shown of evidence that relgion cannot be wrong.
A2597 falls into this latter category.
--RC
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Just to touch on something madmaniac pointed out (I've only read the volcano one so far):
Rangitoto was formed by a sequence of eruptions beginning 600 years ago. Before that point there was no land there (Rangitoto is literally one big lump of scoria). Now, because of the nature of scoria, plants couldn't grow on it. When Europeans first came to NZ and indeed, right up till around 100 to 150 years ago, Rangitoto had little to no vegetation (there are paintings and eyewitness accounts of this from various people). The process of vegetation coverage growth on Rangitoto is still very much ongoing now. If you go out to Rangitoto today you will still see very large areas of bare rock because no vegetation has taken hold yet. Now, well before Rangitoto arrived on the scene, back in the last ice age, the area was a river valley. Any wood from "beneath" Rangitoto lava (I would love to know how they got beneath the lava) would be decaying/decayed wood that was on the sea floor at the time of the eruption and got pushed up by lava. If you date wood [i]on[/i] Rangitoto, you're naturally going to get a much younger figure. As for the lava itself: it wasn't created just specifically for that eruption. It was floating around inside the earth's mantle for a long time as magma, mixing it up with various elements. It seems to me that the potassium-argon dating would be working fine in this situation.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
A2597, you want to talk about Carbon dating?
Go read a few prepublication source articles on it:
Carbon dating: [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarxiv.org+carbon+dating&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official[/url]
Radioactive decay: [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3Aarxiv.org+radioactive+decay&btnG=Search[/url]
These might be a bit over your head. If so, just look in a particle physics book about radioactive decay and see if it also talks about carbon dating.
Comments
[B]I used to lean towards the 6 days being much longer idea as well, but more recently opted towards then 10,000 year timeline. Either way, I still firmly believe that things were created as we see them now, and that man did live with dinosaurs for a time. [/B][/QUOTE]
Eh... for me of course the longer time period makes more sense. I justify that because of OUR falability (is that a word?)
:p
You know it could be that The great serpents and dragons were left over dwindling survivors of the Jurrasic that were dying out and becoming extinct as animals became the dominant creatures.
We'd need to find very recent fossils for that though...
It's just amazing to me from a geological, chemical, and biological aspect that the soft tissue has survived 70 million years! :)
I do have to laugh at the discovery of that very OLD deep sea dwelling fish they once though was extinct for millions of years...
where evolutionist see billions of years of rock layers, creationist see one massive, quick flood.
we can argue the schemantics of this all day, but in the end we use the same evidance, with both sides say the other has no tangible evidance supporting their claims, and both sides are very set that they are correct.
Neither option is more possible then the other, but in the end only one IS correct. Which one seems more likely depends on the person, to me, it is simply infathomable that we happened by chance, for others, the oppocite.
The problem with anything dealing with god is that it is unfalsifiable. God can't be disproven by direct means. We can arrive to the conclusion based on what we know of the universe. The lack of evidence for something is often reguarded as evidence aganced when there are competing theories that do have evidence for. (I do have some issues with this statement when the competing theories are really nothing more than a hypothesis)
Also a hypothesis doesn't become a theory. A hypothesis is a statement that is made for the purpose of an expiriment. A theory is, generally, a kind of model that explains something. These tend to arrive from the results of the expirament (hopefully more than one done by various people), not the hypothesis itself.
and i'm too lazy to fix the spelling
And example being the universe expanding at an increasing rate, meaning one big bang.
(I'm begining to like that one. I think it's just too cool. :D )
through highschool, not really. only in Natural sciance and the likes, basically goving the theory rather then the "facts" supporting it.
-edit, heading to bed, be back in 11 to 12 hours. thats if I wake up before noon. if I don't then it will be tomorrow evening. :D 6 hours of class, all after noon. :D
[B]OK, A#, you're going to have to explain to me how all those rock layers can be created in one quick flood. [/B][/QUOTE]
God was in a foul mood and poured in Quickrete by mistake... :p
Ithink the flood event is a passed down memory from 10k-13k years ago when the large ice caps and shelves melted in a 20 year period...
That's huge when you think about it
I personally believe that much in there is based on reality of ancient cultures taht were transcribed and passed down...and for some inexplicable reason became a religion when in reality they originated as a culture, national law, and experiences of specific people in those regions.
[B]No offense, but just because life may have been created, it is silly to assume it is an indication of a shorter time span for the Earth itself. It seems just as feasible that if you're going to assume God created life then either he did it a long time ago, or he was strolling around his universe garden one day, saw a planet that was developing nicely and quite settled and thought to himself, "Hmmm, that planet's coming along well. I think I'll drop a few lifeforms on it." [/B][/QUOTE]
was just looking back at this and one of JackN's more recent posts when it occured to me, why does there have to be a god that did this? why not a race like the Vorlons? afterall, any sufficiently advanced race will look like gods to a lesser one? i think it more likely that some more advanced form of life could do this, withought having to drag in a much more complex system of having gods and such ala occam's razor
faith in a more advanced form of life i can deal with and believe, but not in a all-powerful divine prescence, but thats just my opinion
[B](is that a word?)
:p
[/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed it is : [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fallibility[/url]
Anyway, I have nothing else to say, so Ill just sit here and watch..
As for cloning, I'd like one dog size, sure would scare the crap out of burgulars! :D
They are called iguanas. :)
[B]thanks Biggles, nice to have some ground on that one.
Final answer: We're both right. :D
(Well, close enough for me. Guided evolution...heh what a crock (imho) ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Can't believe I missed this post...
Anyway, this is what we call "bending the facts to fit." The figures quite clearly state that only 5% are creationists, you were claiming 50%.
It should also be pointed out that these are american scientists only; the scientific community is not restricted to just the USA. As the more detailed one said, in Europe and Australia evolution is nearly universally accepted.
Rate of decay inconsistant:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp[/url]
potassium-argon dating inconsistant:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/volcano.asp[/url]
billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated:
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp[/url]
Lots of others, main thing they all agree on is that decay rates are not consistant.
as for the decay rates being inconsistent, we're taught here at Edinburgh Uni to take all radiometric dating results with a small pinch of salt, but not [I]that[/I] big a pinch. now im not saying that Im catagorically saying your wrong with your Creation myth, but as a geologist (in training i admit ;)) I cant see any other naturally occuring way that what I can see about me could have happened in a week or as a result of a flood. there are certain catastrophic means that could cause some of the features, but others couldnt be formed by anything other than something as drastic as an impact event in the alloted timespan.
to paraphrase the fermi paradox here: if god exists, then why dont we see him now?
Also, Biggle does have a good point there, over here in europe evolution is practically a fact (with capital "F").
Oh, and I wouldn't consider a magazine that claims to "uphold the authority of the bible" an independent and unbiased source of scientific information.
[B]I actually lean in this direction myself in all seriousness.
...[/B][/QUOTE]
That's pritty much how I see the whole thing also. :)
Note: With all the propaganda around here...this only seems appropriate to bring up.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmaniac [/i]
[B]Oh, and I wouldn't consider a magazine that claims to "uphold the authority of the bible" an independent and unbiased source of scientific information. [/B][/QUOTE]
just to make a side point here: what makes the bible correct over budism and islam for example? as far as i can see, only the fact that theres a few folk who believe it; and that if america believes it, it must be right:rolleyes:
whos dream? if its mine, a world has been created yet, otherwise I wouldn't be the one who is dreaming, because dreaming implies that I exist in a place where I can be awake and interact with my surroundings (that being the universe we know,a jar in which my head floats...), and also be asleep to dream. Also, if the world I/we exist at this very moment is my dream, then it was already created by the dreamer, me (Look ma, I'm God!) (Hah! double proof!! :D )
If its, on the other hand, the dream of another, then the world I live in is a dream and would cease to exist, BUT, as the other is dreaming, his dream exists (as he created it - now look who is God now...), and also his reality (awake-world) would exist. Sooo... a (the?) world exists, even if this is a dream. Now, as for the question which world/reality (or dream) exists, the floor is hereby opened... :shadow1: *
[SIZE=1]*Warning! contains high dosage of weariness-induced logic - may not hold up to close scrutiny[/SIZE]
A2597's argument centers around two things:
Creationism (as with all philosophy) cannot be "proven" false
The Theory of Evolution (and all science) is evolving, and therefore occasionally there are falsehoods that have to be ironed out.
This is the same way my statement "We are a dream" cannot be proven false. In order to prove it false you have to prove that we are not a dream. All we can do is find evidence again and again that simply supports a non-dream state such as the famous "I think therefore I am." But it is impossible to prove we are not a dream.
In the same way creationism cannot be disproved. One can argue until they are blue that creationism is not true, but so long as the person that believes it says that every peice of evidence against it is "planted by god" that person will never accept that creationism isn't true.
The moment you start to say "Can all these many, many peices of evidence really be planted" is the first step to realizing that religious dogma might indeed be false.
Science is the study of assembling evidence from nature into theories.
Religious dogma is believing that no matter what you are shown of evidence that relgion cannot be wrong.
A2597 falls into this latter category.
--RC
Rangitoto was formed by a sequence of eruptions beginning 600 years ago. Before that point there was no land there (Rangitoto is literally one big lump of scoria). Now, because of the nature of scoria, plants couldn't grow on it. When Europeans first came to NZ and indeed, right up till around 100 to 150 years ago, Rangitoto had little to no vegetation (there are paintings and eyewitness accounts of this from various people). The process of vegetation coverage growth on Rangitoto is still very much ongoing now. If you go out to Rangitoto today you will still see very large areas of bare rock because no vegetation has taken hold yet. Now, well before Rangitoto arrived on the scene, back in the last ice age, the area was a river valley. Any wood from "beneath" Rangitoto lava (I would love to know how they got beneath the lava) would be decaying/decayed wood that was on the sea floor at the time of the eruption and got pushed up by lava. If you date wood [i]on[/i] Rangitoto, you're naturally going to get a much younger figure. As for the lava itself: it wasn't created just specifically for that eruption. It was floating around inside the earth's mantle for a long time as magma, mixing it up with various elements. It seems to me that the potassium-argon dating would be working fine in this situation.
Go read a few prepublication source articles on it:
Carbon dating: [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarxiv.org+carbon+dating&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official[/url]
Radioactive decay: [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=site%3Aarxiv.org+radioactive+decay&btnG=Search[/url]
These might be a bit over your head. If so, just look in a particle physics book about radioactive decay and see if it also talks about carbon dating.